Twostories discuss the possibility that former UN Ambassador John Bolton might run for President. It is an intriguing long shot choice. The Conflicted Libertarian would be conflicted. Bolton is a “neo-con” hawk; that’s bad:

He [Bolton] has assailed the administration’s “policy chaos” in Afghanistan. And he has unabashedly called for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities while accusing the White House of leaving the U.S. defenseless by canceling missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic (the administration later announced a scaled-back defensive shield).

But he is an extreme skeptic on UN and related issues; that’s good:

As President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for arms control, Bolton rarely saw an international treaty — whether on global warming, biological weapons or arms smuggling — that he didn’t want out of. His hard-line views prompted Senate Democrats to block his 2005 U.N. nomination. Bush did an end-around by giving Bolton a temporary recess appointment to the international body that Bolton openly disdained for its tendency to compromise.

President Bolton would surely not support the International Criminal Court, the UN Child Treaty, or CEDAW. That’s good, too. I would sleep well in a Bolton administration as far as sovereignty is concerned. Bolton’s place in the Presidential debate would be helpful. But I won’t switch; I’m for Ron Paul – his views are clear, as he said at the Value Voters debate in 2008: He wants US out of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT. I doubt Bolton will go that far. I do think there is a place in politics for John Bolton. Perhaps US Senate or a cabinet post in a Paul administration. But not behind the Oval Office desk.

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)